Hot Topics:

User Profile: MtrmnMike

Comments

On the FOX News website, it states that gate came down on the back of the Jeep Cherokee when it stopped on the track; the female driver got out to look at it. It states that she was outside her vehicle at the moment of impact, and is one of the fatalities, but it also states the she went back in to try to drive away when she was struck.

I don’t see it in this story that there were 2 cars involved. There is a grade crossing (crossbucks & lights…but can’t see the gate) in one of the pictures, with what I presume to be the last (unscathed) commuter car. If that was where the vehicle was hit, the train would have pushed it a few hundred feet down the track. The explosion might have resulted from the gas tank rupturing, igniting from the third rail. Of course, we may wonder if this wasn’t an accident. Was the car’s driver one of the fatalities? Waiting for additional info on this.

Totally pausible…please refer to Jeff’s post below. At some point, a meteor slows down to a teminal velocity speed, i.e. just dropping. If it was in his parachute, as some claim, would it be falling as fast as it appears in such a short distance?

Many people have erroneous views of meteors travelling through the air, expecting them to be fireballs all the way to the ground. They sometimes actually have frost on them that they pick up at very high altitudes, depending on the weather.

You know this how?
Oh right, I read it on the inter net web so it's true.

April 3, 2014 at 10:40pm

Jeff Bassett responded:

Mike is correct. There are many myths and tales of what happens when a meteoroid enters the atmosphere. More over, what people think they see is based on perspective, especially with objects in the air, where there is no other reference points for the person to gain a true measure of what they many times are observing.
For instance, many think when they see the trail of a meteor go over the horizon, it has landed just beyond that point. But that light trail is being made high in the atmosphere and has continued on over the the curvature of the Earth.
When that light dims out, either it has burned up or it has cooled and slowed in velocity enough to start dropping from an arc to straight down.
As for the term terminal velocity, it refers to the speed becoming constant due to the restraining forces exerted on it, in this case air drag. Parachutist generally with arms out reach a terminal velocity of 126 MPH until they deploy their chutes. They can change that speed if they alter their attitude and or draw in their arms and legs to reduce the air drag gaining speed.

April 3, 2014 at 11:07pm

Nabuquduriuzhur responded:

Nasa has a terminal velocity calculator. Out of curiosity I used it to calculate how fast a bullet is traveling when it reaches the ground. A little over 100 mph.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/termv.html

April 3, 2014 at 11:09pm

Nabuquduriuzhur responded:

I should amend that to say, if someone shot upwards and the bullet came back down under gravity, it was a bit over 100mph
(What sparked it was a comic where people were shooting in the air on the 4th of July and other people were taking cover)

April 4, 2014 at 12:11pm

nonofmybiznez responded:

Soooo funny! This guy just opened his canopy. That slows your speed and jerks you to a stop (sort of). Go jump out of a plane and try it...

February 26, 2014 at 2:41pm

Try and get a look through a decent-sized scope. There are plenty of resources available to find astronomy clubs/planetariums/amateur observatories that have regularly-scheduled skywatching events that are open to the public. You’ll be able to see a few of it’s moons as well, and I believe you’ll be impressed!

I saw this through my 60mm spotting scope from Brooklyn, NY, the previous time that I believe it happened. I was on my way to work at the Coney Island terminal of the NYC subway (train operator), and trying to get there by the time of occurrence, about 09:45, so the scope could be set up on the overpass, with the intent of showing some fellow workers and maybe a couple of passengers. As (bad) luck would have it, the traffic on the Belt Pkwy was backed-up that morning, so I pulled into one of the parking areas west of Bay Parkway. Jumped out of my car and set it up with a couple of minutes to spare, and watched the last quarter moon slowly pass in front of Saturn. Shortly afterward, clouds rolled in and covered the moon completely; I had hoped to see Saturn emerge from the opposite side about 50 minutes later. The date was September 10, 2001, the day before the world changed. (BTW, I don’t believe in ‘signs’, omens, etc.)
A few years earlier, I watched at night as the moon slid just under it, with the planet skimming the moon’s north (I recall) pole, appearing like a ship floating above. It’s really neat to see the actual movement of celestial bodies in real time, with the moon (obviously) being the fastest moving object.

There’ll be OTHER total, annular & partial eclipses before then, e.g. August 2017 across the US. The article states that THIS type of eclipse, a partial/annular, won’t be seen until that date. There are plenty of resources available in print & ‘net form that list ALL types of eclipses (solar & lunar) as well as other astronomical phenomena, so you don’t have to read/hear about them AFTER they happen!

How do you know ISON has an iron core? I haven’t seen anything that states that. Also, comets don’t smash planets into tiny asteroids. The Asteroid Belt is believed to have formed because of the gravitational influence & disruption of Jupiter’s gravity.

The-Right-Rider
Thanks for clearing up what you did at NASA…very impressive, and I’m sure it was an awesome experience. I have great respect for what you guys have done over the decades. Just the phrase ‘technically a rocket scientist’ kinda caught my eye…and I apologize if I sounded snarky; I was just trying to be curiously humorous.
Honestly, though, I’ve never seen or heard of any figures above the 4.6 bil year age in any (primarily astronomical) publication/source.

Bones…you’re really stretching here! In addition to no human remains found below the KT boundary, there’s absolutely NO evidence of human activity…PERIOD! No buildings, artifacts, stone structures, etc that can’t float away by rising waters.
“What we see is exactly what the Flood would produce (and not evolution): deep-sea fossils buried first, then other sea creatures, then coastal, then more inland.” So only humans would be able to float away, then rot away & disappear, and none would get buried along with the poor dinos (which, BTW, have many examples of different species dying out prior to the KT event 65 mil years ago…not to mention the numerous amphibians that went out during the Permian extinction, the BIG one, ~240 mil years ago) who couldn’t swim. That being said, please explain how aquatic dinos (ie: plesiosaurs) ended up going extinct. How could they drown from rising waters…when they’re already in the water? What of the winged dinos (pterosaurs, etc); Were they too dumb to not drown from rising waters, and get aloft to higher grounds? The KT Impact event ties them all together.
I keep saying ‘rising waters’ because the story says that it rained for ‘forty days & nights’, which resulted in a flood. I also understand that there is evidence of actual sudden, massive floods occurring throughout geologic history (ie: the huge ice dam that collapsed in N America ~10,000 (?) yrs ago. But these are regional events…not the worldwide event proposed i

DNEWTON: ” I think the whole geological column is now depicted as being nearly 15 Billion years old.”
Really?? The current estimates of the age of the entire universe are around 13.7 bil. I’d like to know who it was that you read or heard coming up with that figure!
I also didn’t see anything in your post that answered my question. I read that “…creationist don’t believe in the geological column…”, which seems to say that they don’t ‘believe’ in the physical, fossil record.
I’ll ask again: Why are there dinosaur remains found below the KT level/boundary and none above? Do you need an explanation of what the KT boundary is? If you do, do you reject the physical evidence for that, as well?

For the most part, creationist don't believe in the geological column that has been published from the times of Darwin and extended to longer and longer intervals over time. I think the whole geological column is now depicted as being nearly 15 Billion years old. They would reject the time line and the duration of the alleged ages. These boundaries and the layers between the boundaries are dated by fossils. A major problem is that no oil company or scientific endeavor has been able to drill down and find every one of those ages in the exact sequence depicted. Some layers are even found reversed where I live and they explain this by saying the rock was folded. Even if you drill down five miles, this geological column continues to be more of a philosophical depiction of what it should be if evolution were true than a scientific depiction of what is commonly found.

August 12, 2013 at 1:08pm

guz75 responded:

'this geological column continues to be more of a philosophical depiction of what it should be if evolution were true than a scientific depiction of what is commonly found'.
Except the scientists responsible were largely creationists, in fact Darwin hadn't written the origin of species at this point, 2 major contributors were Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend.
It was always going to shift, because as you rightly point out, it is effectively impossible to show the entire sequence in one place. In effect it is like a massive jigsaw puzzle pieced together by comparing stratification of rock from thousands of locations all over the world and the dating of fossils contained within. These dating methods weren't available to the original scientists, yet when the dating of fossils was used as an index it tied in perfectly with the original findings.

August 12, 2013 at 1:31pm

MtrmnMike responded:

DNEWTON: " I think the whole geological column is now depicted as being nearly 15 Billion years old."
Really?? The current estimates of the age of the entire universe are around 13.7 bil. I'd like to know who it was that you read or heard coming up with that figure!
I also didn't see anything in your post that answered my question. I read that "...creationist don’t believe in the geological column...", which seems to say that they don't 'believe' in the physical, fossil record.
I'll ask again: Why are there dinosaur remains found below the KT level/boundary and none above? Do you need an explanation of what the KT boundary is? If you do, do you reject the physical evidence for that, as well?

August 12, 2013 at 3:15pm

bonesiii responded:

I think it is really evolutionists who need to explain why we see "living fossils" that disappear above certain levels. It certainly makes sense under the global Flood explanation of the (majority of the) fossil-bearing strata.
In short, we wouldn't expect to see humans buried with dinosaurs. The evolutionists are right on one point -- it wouldn't make sense for (most) dinosaurs to live right next to humans (by the time of the Flood; prior to the Fall and for some time afterwards, perhaps). What we see is exactly what the Flood would produce (and not evolution): deep-sea fossils buried first, then other sea creatures, then coastal, then more inland.
Humans would both be rare to begin with and also be most likely to escape the approaching floodwaters long enough that their bodies would not be buried, and would rot away. (This also likely applied to a large percentage of the animals, by the way.) They'd also be more likely to cling to pieces of wood to stay afloat at first, etc. (I have theorized before that prior to the Flood most construction may have been wooden huts, so these would tend to "float apart" and form unreliable but temporary rafts.)
After the Flood, many humans (both of the longer-living variety and the modern short-lifespan type) may occasionally be buried due to living in caves that collapse, etc. and this appears to be what we find.

August 12, 2013 at 4:37pm

MtrmnMike responded:

Bones...you're really stretching here! In addition to no human remains found below the KT boundary, there's absolutely NO evidence of human activity...PERIOD! No buildings, artifacts, stone structures, etc that can't float away by rising waters.
"What we see is exactly what the Flood would produce (and not evolution): deep-sea fossils buried first, then other sea creatures, then coastal, then more inland." So only humans would be able to float away, then rot away & disappear, and none would get buried along with the poor dinos (which, BTW, have many examples of different species dying out prior to the KT event 65 mil years ago...not to mention the numerous amphibians that went out during the Permian extinction, the BIG one, ~240 mil years ago) who couldn't swim. That being said, please explain how aquatic dinos (ie: plesiosaurs) ended up going extinct. How could they drown from rising waters...when they're already in the water? What of the winged dinos (pterosaurs, etc); Were they too dumb to not drown from rising waters, and get aloft to higher grounds? The KT Impact event ties them all together.
I keep saying 'rising waters' because the story says that it rained for 'forty days & nights', which resulted in a flood. I also understand that there is evidence of actual sudden, massive floods occurring throughout geologic history (ie: the huge ice dam that collapsed in N America ~10,000 (?) yrs ago. But these are regional events...not the worldwide event proposed i

August 12, 2013 at 4:40pm

MtrmnMike responded:

But these are regional events…not the worldwide event proposed in the Bible. (Must've run out of characters!)

August 12, 2013 at 6:08pm

bonesiii responded:

"stretching"
Well, that's an... interesting interpretation. Given that all the evidence we see fits the biblical scenario to a tee, and that evolutionists must concoct many ad hoc patches to make it even seem to fit evolution, surely it's they who are reaching.
There is countless evidence that the evolutionary interpretation cannot work. One big one is that at measured rates of continental recycling, the supposed early layers should have been entirely recycled out around three times over, yet evolutionists say they are that old and intact. The story just breaks down when you get into the details.
"absolutely NO evidence of human activity…PERIOD!"
With respect, you kind of sound like a broken record that didn't even read my post. We would not expect to see (direct) evidence of humans that low. This is a little like pointing to a single-barrel gun that has been fired and claiming it wasn't because the bullet isn't found still in the barrel. In short, humans likely did not live in the same locations as dinosaurs, and likely no evidence of their habitation would have survived (as it would have floated away).
Also, there is overwhelming indirect evidence, especially the long list of geologic evidence that virtually proves the global Flood laid down the main fossil-bearing layers (see my other posts, etc. for details and links). Everything fits the picture the Bible paints. Ergo Occam's Razor would say it must be true.

August 12, 2013 at 6:09pm

bonesiii responded:

"No buildings, artifacts, stone structures"
How you get from wood huts to stone structures I don't get. :P Again I wonder if you read my post or just loosely skimmed it.
There IS, to be fair, evidence that there would have been at least metal tools. But there are some contextual reasons to think this happened near the very end, so either would be so rare they would not survive, or Noah might have bought them all for help in building the ark (there's more to this reasoning but it's a long explanation so I'll wait for now). Of course, even more serious is the total lack of any evidence of secularistic evolution in the fossil record which surely would have been FAR more numerous under evolution than metal tools under creation!
To be fair, I know of at least one extrabiblical source which claims the city of Enoch (Cain's son) was built with stone (Cain was supposed to have been killed by a collapse here). The Babel incident at least implies that it was a replacement of brick for earlier stone, but this was likely still post-Flood. I suspect that source is simply embellishing and making assumptions based on the world at the time (only Noah and his family could know anyways, and given that they did not record it in the Bible, it's questionable later authors could know it, even if it were so).

August 12, 2013 at 6:10pm

bonesiii responded:

Note also that AiG at least has in plans published for the Ark Encounter implied they plan to show stone-based pre-Flood architecture as possible examples of what could have been. Logically we cannot rule this out. I just think it's more likely this was not done until after the Flood. We have evidence of metalworking, wood construction (ark) and "primitive" buildings (tents), but zero clear evidence for pre-Flood stonework.
"So only humans would be able to float away,"
If you're just going to post strawmen I must wonder why you even bothered to ask. :P Why be combative? What I said makes sense as-is... if you need to mockingly twist it to try to counteract it that doesn't exactly show it problematic...
"none would get buried along with the poor dinos"
Well, that's what not living together would imply, yes...
"BTW, have many examples of different species dying out"
See my earlier post, again, and others on the first page. There is no scientific way to know "when" (even if we bought the untenable millions-to-billions of years interpretation of the fossil layers) a creature actually died out. Again, we see fossils that just end in low layers, yet are still alive today. This has falsified the "where it ends = extinction" assumption.
And again, abrupt ends in the layers along with some of them surviving to today is what the Flood would do.

August 12, 2013 at 6:11pm

bonesiii responded:

Re: plesiosaur extinction (and other water reptiles) -- Firstly, we know they survived at least up to the Flood. They would not have been on the Ark, so the question is if they would survive past the Flood. I lean toward yes, but it's hard to be sure.
The main reason I say yes, and also yes to continued survival for a while afterward, is that under the currently best supported Flood model, runaway subduction, the oceans would have been quite warm, and this likely would have persisted even though the (ash-caused) Ice Age immediately following the Flood (contrary to typical evolutionary assumption that the Ice Age(s) would mean cooler oceans thus extinctions of sea cold-blooded large creatures).
However, the oceans would normalize later and since many things -would- have died out, they likely lost access to needed food sources. Under the runaway model, the original oceanic plates would be entirely ripped out, so many more fragile seafloor creatures (just as we see) would have died out. This, I would think, would include plants as well. Whichever way each individual type of these reptiles went for food by the time of the Flood, continued survival long after it would become increasingly hard. If any still ate plants at all they would have to switch to meat, and probably would be out-competed by more adaptable types like sharks, due to having more extreme dietary requirements.

August 12, 2013 at 6:13pm

bonesiii responded:

It has also occurred to me that the Ice Age still might have been a problem by the meat food migrating to under the ice, where possible, where the reptile airbreathers couldn't adapt.
Winged creatures were taken on the ark. But likely they were victims (along with most land dragons) of the Ice Age itself, as the warm-water explanation could not likely allow them to survive it. Some would probably have survived in equatorial regions for a while but by then it would have been too late to get a foothold, plus would be overhunted, etc.
In general, likely the same kinds of reasons any animal goes extinct, and we have seen extinctions even in recent times (and coming close but saved due to human influence now that we've largely come to our senses on that thanks to the spread of biblical knowledge, etc.). There's nothing exceptional or hard to explain about extinctions. What's hard to explain is how any life could be here at all, without God (I say impossible in a truly logical way).
Impacts are not in general mutually exclusive with the Flood, for a very telling reason you might not think of at first -- the one-sided preference of cratering on the moon (and other locations). This seems to show that at one point there was a unique (perhaps extrasolar, "just passing through") large and numerous meteorite swarm, which may actually have been part of what triggered the Flood (and continued during it).

August 12, 2013 at 6:29pm

AntonW responded:

JERRY'S (BonesIII)ntechnique is to bombard people with so much pre-packaged hogwash that it's not eveb worth wading through his laundry list of nonsense and addressing his nonsense point by point. Plus, he's a Mormon, maybe even a FLDS member for all I know. Watch this instead and actually learn something. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE

August 12, 2013 at 6:45pm

7truthiztruth77 responded:

Most (95%) of the fossils are marine, and invertebrate. The rest are mostly plant life. It could be concluded that the human population was far less than other kinds of creatures. humans, being smarter, would have been able to survive for a longer time. fighting for the remaining land or debris. Fossilization requires a rapid burial. otherwise, what is left rots and decays. there is more if you want it

August 12, 2013 at 8:29pm

bonesiii responded:

Anton/Clinton (:P), again, you obviously have me confused with someone else. ;) I'm a biblical Christian, not a Mormon.
As for "prepackaged" etc. it sounds like now you're just copying off of my since I'm the one so often pointing out how evolutionists usually just parrot (often nearly word for word) the usual (long-debunked) talking points. You can do better than that.
Notice also how your entire post is a distraction from the actual issue, evidence, and logic.
Maybe it's just "something to overwhelm you" in reality, but I think it's sound support for the truth. Are you really fairly considering this possibility? I mean, somebody's gotta be right (okay not really, but if someone is, wouldn't they be the ones who could soundly support it?).

August 12, 2013 at 12:06pm

The-Right-Rider, I’ve never heard anyone in the scientific community come up with a ’10 billion year’ age for Earth…the number is around 4.6 billion for the age of the solar system in general.
Not knowing you, I’ll have to except your claim of being a former NASA employee…but, just what is a ‘technical’ rocket scientist? Did you make scale models, or just draw them?